MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3127557989 · doi:10.1111/cgf.142627

Levitating Rigid Objects with Hidden Rods and Wires

2021· preprint· en· W3127557989 on OpenAlexafffund
Sarah Kushner, Risa Ulinski, Karan Singh, David I. W. Levin, Alec Jacobson

Bibliographic record

VenueComputer Graphics Forum · 2021
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
Topic3D Surveying and Cultural Heritage
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsRodRegular polygonPolyhedronSet (abstract data type)Computer scienceVisibilityTerm (time)LevitationShear (geology)Compression (physics)AlgorithmMechanical engineeringMathematicsEngineeringGeometryMaterials sciencePhysicsComposite materialOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We propose a novel algorithm to efficiently generate hidden structures to support arrangements of floating rigid objects. Our optimization finds a small set of rods and wires between objects and each other or a supporting surface (e.g., wall or ceiling) that hold all objects in force and torque equilibrium. Our objective function includes a sparsity inducing total volume term and a linear visibility term based on efficiently pre‐computed Monte‐Carlo integration, to encourage solutions that are as‐hidden‐as‐possible. The resulting optimization is convex and the global optimum can be efficiently recovered via a linear program. Our representation allows for a user‐controllable mixture of tension‐, compression‐, and shear‐resistant rods or tension‐only wires. We explore applications to theatre set design, museum exhibit curation, and other artistic endeavours.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.193 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueComputer Graphics ForumSame topic3D Surveying and Cultural HeritageFrench-language works237,207